Today's Excellent Church.

[Benson]

Acts 2 gives the narrative of how the Body of Christ His Church was brought into being by the coming of The Holy Spirit, according to Joel ch. 2 as cited by Apostle Peter.

Today, there are no features within modern Christendom which are a continuation of either Acts ch. 2, Joel ch. 2, The Jerusalem Messianic Church, or the Pauline Gentile Church.

This post remains very short because there is no other information in Scripture to authenticate the state of today's so called "Church." If one thinks the Church does exist today according to the foundation of the Apostles with Christ as the Cornerstone, tell us where on Earth it exists in the hearts of Men before God. No place in Paul's teaching says the Church is some intangibly perceived group of minds set upon faith in Christ.

[JehovahsWitness]

And yet here were some previous statements they made:


WT June 15, 64 "As Jehovah revealed his truths by means of the first century Christian congregation so he does today by means of the present-day Christian congregation. Through this agency he is having carried out prophesying. All of this activity is not an accident. Jehovah is the one behind all of it."

HAVE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES EVERY CLAIMED TO BE INSPIRED PROPHETS?

No, the Catholic Vatican rightly recognises there is a difference between uttering INSPIRED prophecy and being in a "prophetic" work or mission, note the following :

By virtue of their prophetic mission, lay people "are called . . . to be witnesses to Christ in all circumstances and at the very heart of the community of mankind" - THE PROFESSION OF FAITH II CHAP 3 art 9 par 4 #942

The Greek prophetes literally means “a speaker out [Gr., pro, “before” or “in front of,” and phe·miʹ, “say”]” and thus describes a proclaimer, one who makes known messages attributed to a divine source. (Compare Tit 1:12.) - Insigne on the Scriptures VOL II p. 694

In other words in its wider sense, "prophecying" (as opposed to being an inspired prophet) can refer to the activity of witnessing about God and Jesus or pronouncing pre-recorded message from God as found in scripture. NOTE paragraph 20 page 365 of the Watchtower article (June 15, 1964 ) cited above

...With the King’s enthronement came the issuing of a continuous flow of instructions to obedient subjects of that kingdom in order to clarify their understanding on doctrine and procedure. A constant supply of progressively unsealed truths was assured.

source : https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... m?id=35848


So the aticle is speaking about the understanding of already existing inspired prophecies, hitherto "sealed" from being understood, but subsequently revealed through His true church (congregation). It is speaking about evangelizing, as per the Vatican definition. At no point in the article do the writers claim inspired prophecy originated with them.






RELATED POSTS

Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever claimed the role of in prophets?
viewtopic.php?p=1038818#p1038818

What is the difference between inspired revelation and biblical interpretation?
viewtopic.php?p=1045211#p1045211

Can God's servants share their opinions?
viewtopic.php?p=1045224#p1045224

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

HERMENEUTICS* , ORGANISATIONAL INFALLIBILITY and ... FALSE PROPHETS

[ * ]Bible Interpretation

[JehovahsWitness]

DID AN AWAKE ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY JEHOVAHS WITNESS IN 1968 CONFESS TO BEING FALSE PROPHETS?


No it did not. The article exposed false prophets ("those", "they", "such people") but never included the publishers or Jehovah's Witnesses in that number. Indeed the whole point of the article was to point out the difference (see heading) between such false prophets and the proclamations of Christ's true Witnesses ("we")


Source : AWAKE magasine, Octobre 8th p. 23

.... there was a time when they claimed to be acting as prophets.

See above






RELATED POSTS

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "FALSE PROPHETS" ?
viewtopic.php?p=1044873#p1044873

How many times have Jehovah's Witesses wrongly predicted the end of the world? [video]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 26#p981826

Have there not been articles published by Jehovah's Witnesses in which they claimed to be prophets?
viewtopic.php?p=1038818#p1038818

Did JWs confess in a 1968 article to being False Prophets?
viewtopic.php?p=1038819#p1038819

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , THE 2ND COMING and ...FAILED PREDICTIONS,

[JehovahsWitness]

We generally do not see the need to name any specific group or religion as our goal is always to teach what is true and false from the bible and let people decide for themselves if the cap fits.

Because your fellow JW, Onewithhim, called out your Church, named it, as well as naming a few other groups. . . .

Onewithhim: “Now, the Harlot refers to not just the Catholic Church but all religions that claim to be worshiping the one true God but are not, and they show this by their works. It can easily be seen that the RCC has had very bad works throughout history, but not just them. Protestants, Orthodox, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, B'Hai, Buddhists, various far Eastern religions, Judaism......all of them show works that are far from what Jesus taught.”

I said "generally" not always. In our official literature (which outlines official Jehovah's Witness beliefs and policy), we generally do not feel the need to tell people their specific religion is part of Babylon the Great. That said, we believe ALL religions (with the exception of Jehovah's Witnesses ) are, we hold, part of Babylon and there is nothing wrong or inaccurate in naming her major components.



This is a debate forum and in this particular online "kitchen" its fair to say one might legitimately expect some extra heat. One has but to ignore, leave or challenge the accusation.


That said there is a difference between an ORGANISATION or INSTITUTION and the individual therein (see below)





Which religions are part of Babylon the Great?
viewtopic.php?p=1038821#p1038821

Why do Jehovahs Wintesses believe they are not part of Babylon the Great?
viewtopic.php?p=1044999#p1044999

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, BABYLON THE GREAT and ...THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS

[JehovahsWitness]

That said there is a difference between an ORGANISATION or INSTITUTION and the individual therein (see below)


DO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CONSIDER MEMBERS OF BABYLON THE GREAT HARLOTS ?

I object to being considered the harlot ...

If someone considers you a harlot it certainly -wouldn't be one of Jehovahs Witnesses since we dont believe Babylon the Great pictures any one individual. We believe it is a metaphore for the world empire of false religion ( the instituitions not the individuals therein).

It is not mere semantics to distinguish between the institution and the individual. The bible condemns false religion meaning the system of worship institionalized by religious bodies, teaching, directives and religious laws and statues. Although made up of individual people, the organisation itself continues irrespective of whether a member leaves or not. No one individual *is* the organisation, not even its leader.

To illustrate: If somebody works for a large multinationl corporation that is revealed to have been corrupt for generations , does that mean that person is necessarily corrupt? If he dies does the corporation die with Him? No he will either be replaced or adjustments will be made but the corporation goes on.

The bible condemns false religion as an entity /institution /organisation but note something interesting in Revelation 18 verse 4

REVELATION 18:4

And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.

Jesus identifies INDIVIDUALS within Babylon as "his people". They like the faithful Prophet Daniel and his companions, taken by force from Jerusalem to Babylon of old, are innocent victims of the corrupt lies of this condemed "prostitute". They have been taken as spiritual "captives" by her false teaching and spiritual perversion. And Jesus calls all honest hearted lovers of truth to get out!

Jesus will judge each individual person on earth at the coming great tribulation, whether members of an organised religion or not but the HARLOT is already condmned and sure to be completely destroyed. And I for one can only say, good riddance !!

After this I heard what seemed to be a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven. They said: “Praise Jah!*+ The salvation and the glory and the power belong to our God, 2 because his judgments are true and righteous.+ For he has executed judgment on the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her sexual immorality,* and he has avenged the blood of his slaves that is on her hands.”*+ 3 And right away for the second time they said: “Praise Jah!*+ - Revelation 19:1-3

JW





Which religions are part of Babylon the Great?
viewtopic.php?p=1038821#p1038821

Do JWs consider the individual members of false religions to be "harlots" (prostitutes)?
viewtopic.php?p=1038822#p1038822

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, BABYLON THE GREAT and ...THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS

[RightReason]

Significant deviations from Scripture are not hard to discern.

I’m pretty sure that’s what everyone thinks and yet there are over thousands of different Christian denominations all teaching different things.

What Jesus said in John 6 cannot be intended literally, because no one ever did that (actually eat His flesh and drink His blood).

What are you talking about? Countless have done so.

As Jesus has done frequently in this Gospel, He is speaking in terms of physical items in this world to teach about spiritual realities.

I admit He does do that sometimes, but not here. Here He is speaking literally. And given a proper reading of the text and an understanding of texts that preceded and followed, nothing else makes sense. In fact, it was so obvious He was speaking literally that THAT is exactly what those who heard Him the day He spoke those words thought. This is a hard saying they said. Who can accept it?, they said. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?, they said. And when they said that, Jesus didn’t say, woah guys lighten up, I’m speaking figuratively. Nope. He double downed on exactly what He said the first time. In fact, He used very graphic words (not words that might mistakenly be considered symbolic or figurative. The true translation of the words He actually spoke translated more to chew and gnaw even then to eat.

And Scripture itself tells us those following Him were shocked. They were offended. If Jesus were simply symbolically saying, “I am the bread of life . . . “ no one would find that shocking. No one would have been offended. And what happened after Jesus didn’t back down? Scripture tells us many left. They could not accept His words. And Jesus turned to Peter, and said, “Do you take offense at this? Do you too wish to leave?”. And Peter, probably not fully understanding exactly how Jesus was going to do what He was proclaiming at least took Jesus at His word and said, “Where would we go? You alone have the words of eternal life”

Also, anyone who knows Scripture would understand the parallels from the OT that Jesus was the spotless lamb for the sacrificial meal. It was always necessary to actually literally eat the sacrificial lamb.

I beg you to read John 6 and really think about it. Meditate on it. There is no way around it.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57

Here, to "eat" Jesus's flesh has the spiritual meaning of trusting or believing in Him

Nope. That’s watered down Protestant propaganda and not what the early Church taught or believed. Did you know even Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence prior to his revolt and leaving Christ’s Church? There are writings from the first Christians and early Church fathers giving testimony to the literal translation of John 6. It would not have made sense to think Jesus was speaking metaphorically. It is the version you espouse now that is the invented one. Your version is a change from what it was from the beginning and as we already discussed you can’t change Sacred Scripture or alter Sacred Tradition that has been handed down to us from Christ’s Church.

Similarly, to "drink His blood" means to trust in His atoning death, which is represented by the shedding of His blood.

Then why does Scripture say a few passages later that those who partake without discerning the Body and Blood pass judgment upon themselves and is why many are sick and dying? You can’t get sick from drinking symbolic blood.

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. -1 Corinthians 11:29

As for what I would or would not consider a significant deviation, I would not consider transubstantiation a deviation as much as just a (very) significant misunderstanding.

Ha, ha, ha . . . I’m not sure which is worse that you don’t believe Jesus’ actual words or that you think it isn’t significant if He were speaking literally verses symbolically. You don’t think there is any difference in receiving Jesus’ actual body, blood, soul, and divinity (which is what His church teaches) vs. symbolically receiving an ordinary piece of bread that supposedly represents Jesus?

the sacraments are given to us by God as outward signs that symbolize the real thing. They are formative, but not actual. I realize that the RCC teaches transubstantiation, that's... well, it's wrong.

You are partially correct. Your definition of sacrament is correct, however your understanding of the Holy Eucharist is incorrect.

****


The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament AND a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received.


Christ could not have used clearer, more explicit words than "This is My body." He did not say, "This is a sign of My body," or "This represents My body," but, "This is My body." Catholics take Christ at His word because He is the omnipotent God. On His word they know that the Holy Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.


After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into Our Lord's body and blood, there remained only the appearances of bread and wine.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachi ... harist-178


It is a mystery and a miracle, but none the less true. And it is awesome!

RightReason wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 4:51 pmAgain, we were not told the Bible is our sole authority. As Christians we are expected to follow Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

According to whom?

According to Jesus Christ. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church. He who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you rejects the one that sent me. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. I give to you the keys to the kingdom.”

And according to exactly how the first Christians understood it and acted.

Because again, everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture

Ok, if you believe that, then why don’t you accept in Scripture when He established His Church on Peter and gave him the keys and told us to listen to him?

Why don’t you accept in Scripture when Scripture refers to the Church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth? And when Scripture tells us that Jesus had much more to say to us and that we were to follow His commands whether written down or via tradition and word and mouth?


Also, everything God requires of us is not given to us in Scripture – that is bad theology. The first Christians did not even have the Bible. You are aware of that, right? The Bible was compiled by the Church, so it makes no sense to think all everyone ever needed when the first Christians didn’t even have it! Please think about it!

, which is exactly what Peter himself (who you think is the first pope) tells us (2 Peter 1:3), and we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (Matthew 23:4). This was one of the egregious errors of the Pharisees, who, perhaps unknowingly, went against the Word of God by handing down traditions (Matthew 15, Mark 7, Colossians 2:8).

Absolutely. But if in Scripture Jesus tells us to listen to His Church, then that isn’t adding to Scripture! And Jesus never scolded His people from listening to the leaders and those appointed. They were obliged to do so, but He did warn them that people should accept what they are teaching, but not imitate their sinful example. They were to do as they say and not as they do. God always expected people to listen and obey those He put in charge. This is very evident in Scripture, so very odd for someone to attempt to argue otherwise.

I think I need you to define (and maybe give me some examples of -- "Sacred Tradition." Regarding 'Trinity,' no one argues that the word is not in the Bible, but the Bible clearly portrays the one God as three distinct Persons. Genesis 1 and John 1 immediately come to mind, and Jesus Himself names the three Persons clearly in John 14. Christians use the word 'Trinity' because it captures the simultaneous one-ness and three-ness of God, His triune nature. I wouldn't call that a "tradition" of any kind.

You misunderstand. Yes, we can derive our understanding of the Trinity from the Bible, but it was the Church who declared the Trinity as doctrine. And I have news for you. Not all “Christians” accept the doctrine of the Trinity precisely because they say the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible. They emphasize the passages that show Jesus and Father as distinct persons and the ones that show Jesus is obeying the Father, as if He were not equal. Now, you and I know to conclude that that does not mean Jesus does not have a divine nature, but it certainly is one those beliefs from those who do not accept the authority of Christ’s Church try to argue. And in doing so they claim to be relying solely on the Bible. One can absolutely say it is the Church who clarified the doctrine of the Trinity for God’s people. Thanks be to God.

RightReason wrote:
Please provide an example of the Catholic Church adding to the Bible. Thank you.

I get your irritation.

I’m irritated precisely because of your following comment below that doesn’t actually answer my question. It is simply a statement presented as fact without anything to back it up, hence the irritation.

I'll just answer this generally by saying the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to “another gospel” -- it supplements Scripture with additional traditions and teaching, which is exactly what you have been saying.

Like I asked the first time, what additional traditions and teachings are you referring to and what “other gospel” are you referring to. Please be specific. Thanks.

Jesus is the Rock of our salvation. It is surely true that God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church. However, Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16:

Noooooooo . . . . not the “confession of Peter” argument that was a clever Protestant justification that is actually a fairly recent argument and part of reformed theology. It has been debunked.


******


As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.


Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.”

“I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.”

“We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

“What’s more,” I said, “in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

“And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”


Jesus does not say, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Jesus is giving Peter a threefold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority.

“To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17).


https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-the-rock



The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v.18) than to the more remote confession (v.16).

The idea that “this” refers to Peter becomes even clearer when we consider that Peter’s name literally means rock. This serves as a third response.

If we translate Peter’s name (Petros) literally in Matthew 16:18 it reads, “You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.” This makes Peter a prime candidate for being that to which “this” refers to.

Once again, in Matthew 21:42-44 Jesus says,

The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner . . .And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him.

No Protestant would argue that “this stone” in verse forty-four doesn’t refer to the stone spoken of in verse forty-two. If Jesus speaks of a stone in verse forty-two, and then speaks of “this stone” in verse forty-four, it’s natural to conclude that “this stone” in verse forty-four refers to the stone in verse forty-two.



Given this structure, it becomes clear that the phrase “and on this rock” must refer to Peter. Why would every other statement that Jesus makes explain his main declarations to Peter except that one? To suggest that it doesn’t is to introduce something into the context that doesn’t fit, which is not good exegesis.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... is-founded

the word for “Peter,” Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42)

Nooooooooo . . . not the small rock attempt. <sigh> That is just poor exegesis.



We have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.

Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.

Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.

So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock” in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,” “rocks,” or “rocky” in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.

It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.” However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie” or “Priscilla” in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.


The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.


A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father” in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes”). Jacob (“supplanter”) to Israel (“One who prevails with God”). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter.


In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.” He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.”

No Christian would deny Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. Who does he give the keys to? Peter!

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... r-the-rock

RightReason wrote:
You will get no argument from me with any of that. All true!

Well, great! So, again, Jesus is the Rock of our salvation, on Whom the church is built, and on Whom we should all build our houses (as opposed to sand).

Nope the rock is Peter. Please see my previous comments.

PinSeeker wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 2:59 pmThere are many important questions on which Scripture is silent, and no one claims that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture.

Amen. And precisely why Jesus set up an authoritative earthly Church.

Well no, this is why all we Christians have a Helper, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father has sent in Jesus's name. It is He who teaches us all things and brings to our remembrance all that Jesus said to us (John 14:26).

Need I remind you when sincere truth seeking Christians claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit it results in thousands of different groups – all teaching different things. Gee, if only there was an authoritative earthy Church where we could go for help?

Well thanks for acknowledging the truth of what I said, but it refutes the idea that the Church is empowered to enforce the Gospel or add any requirements/traditions to it.

Not what I said. To claim Scripture is good and significant and can’t be changed has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of an authoritative Church. The one does not negate the other. And the Church has not changed or altered Scripture, so there’s that.

[quote
I'll just focus first on the last thing you said here. Yes, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Is not Jesus the Word made flesh, as John says in John 1:14? Yes. So, working backwards in your assertions here, regarding the church being the pillar and foundation of truth, we must not take this out of Paul's context. How, then, should 1 Timothy 3:15 be interpreted? Judging by the context of 1 Timothy, as well as the rest of Scripture, certainly not that “the church” has an infallible grasp of truth. In this case, Paul is saying that the ekklesia -- the body of believers, “the church” -- is the structure that holds up and holds forth the gospel to the world. “The church,” that is, the entire population of Christian believers, bears the earthly responsibility of holding up the truth of the gospel. The ultimate basis of that truth is Christ, not the proclamations or infallibility of members of that body. Paul is calling on believers to care for the structure that “supports” or “props up” our message to the world. So 1 Timothy 3:15 cannot be taken to mean that the church itself is the source or standard for truth.
[/quote]

Nope. You have a lacking understanding of the Church. Sure, the Church can be referred to as the body of believers, but it also consisted of those chosen by God whom He specifically gave power and authority. “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven”. “I give to you the keys to the kingdom”, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him”. Uuummm . . . sorry, but that authority and power cannot be intended for anyone who calls themselves a Christian. Otherwise, whatever Mormons, JW’s, Lutherans, Quakers, etc. bind on earth shall be bound in heaven –I don’t think so! Not to mention we see in Scripture itself that a hierarchical structured Church was set up and where the first Christians took their concerns. So, again, to declare Scripture the only standard of Truth is simply unscriptural.

Hm. Scripture does interpret scripture, actually.

Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.


“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).


In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).


Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding


He writes:

“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.”


Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked.


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -scriptura



the principle of Sola Scriptura, of dependence solely on the Bible for all truth, “unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable.”

The evangelist Luke, writing in the Book of Acts (8:26-39), pinpoints the problem. An Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the queen, was seated in his chariot, reading the prophet Isaiah. The disciple Philip, inspired by a message from an angel, ran up alongside him. “Do you understand what you're reading?” Philip asked the court official.

And the eunuch, confused by the passage he was reading, replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?”

The story has a happy ending: Philip explains the Scriptures to the eunuch and teaches him about Jesus. The eunuch, realizing the truth of the Gospel, asks to be baptized; and Philip baptizes him at the side of the road.

St. Paul makes the point that we need not just the written Word of God, but verbal instruction. In his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul writes:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Thess. 2:15)


it was the Church which definitively ruled on which of the ancient writings should be included in the canon of scripture.


https://www.ncregister.com/blog/9-catho ... -scriptura

That's great that you agree, but the Catholic position is that faith plus works equals salvation, and that is not right; only God-given faith (as a result of His grace) is necessary for and salvation, and works inevitably follow.

Sounds like you do not fully understand the Catholic position. I tried to explain it to you previously, but you continue to repeat the false misinformation.


Sanctifying Grace saves us through faith and works. God requires us to have faith in Him to be saved, and He also requires us to live a moral life in accordance with His will. If we ever choose to stop believing in God and remain in that unbelief or if we ever choose to live a life of serious sin and immorality (and remain unrepentant until we die) then we will not attain eternal life; God requires us to have both in order for us to achieve salvation.


This in no way, however, contradicts the notion that we are saved entirely by God’s Grace, for we are not saved by the faith and works apart from God’s Grace, nor are we saved by a combination of Grace as well as faith and works apart from Grace. Our faith in God and the works we do in accordance with His will are only possible as a result of the Grace of God that we are given in the first place. That is why we can say, on the one hand, that we must have faith and live a moral life in order to be saved, and yet, on the other hand, that it is only and entirely by the Grace of Jesus Christ that we can be saved at all.


While such Protestants are absolutely right to condemn a works-based salvation in the way it is phrased above (since it is contrary to the Holy Word of God), they are incorrect to assert that this is part of Catholic Church teaching. Though we do differ from Protestants in our proclamation of the importance of works for salvation, we do not differ from them in the importance of Grace for our salvation. The Protestant who believes that Catholic teaching proclaims we are saved directly by our works apart from God’s Grace, in other words that we are capable of saving ourselves entirely or partially on our own merit and not by God’s Grace, does not understand Catholic teaching on Grace, salvation, or works. The true debate between Protestants and Catholics on this issue is not ‘Saved by Grace vs Saved by Works’, but rather ‘Saved by Grace through Faith Alone vs Saved by Grace through Faith and Works’.

https://www.catholic365.com/article/611 ... grace.html

The Catholic position in a nutshell: Saved by Grace through Faith and Works

Baptism, as a sacrament, is only an outward sign and seal, and is not effectual.

The Church teaches every individual receive an indelible mark on their soul at the time of Baptism. It is absolutely effectual.

No one is hinting that "baptism is legalism," but yes, the Church requiring it as necessary for salvation is legalistic. The baptism that is truly effectual is that of the Holy Spirit. We see this in 1 Corinthians 12:13; 6:19, Romans 6:1-10, Colossians 2:12, 1 John 4:15, and Acts 2:28. And as you must know, Jesus said that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (so actually being baptized by men is not absolutely necessary to salvation).

Unless one is born of water and the spirit IS referring to baptism. THAT is what it means. This is another common misconception among many protestant based religions. Baptism is a requirement.

if one is teaching as Jesus taught, then the one who is really being listened to and accepted is Jesus, not the human teacher.

Well, then not sure why you would reject Jesus appointing a leader to speak for Him. When the Church speaks, it is Jesus speaking through His Church to His people, exactly as He intended.

RightReason wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 4:51 pmChrist’s established Church is the Catholic Church and all salvation will come by way of Christ’s Church.

Nope. Christ's Church consists of all God's elect, people from every tongue, tribe, and nation, who number as the stars in heaven and the sand on the seashore.

Agree. Catholics are people from every tongue, tribe, and nation who number the stars . . .

Agreed about the teaching.. or what we call equipping of the saints... but that's not quite what you said, is it? No, you said (and I quote), "...the Church is certainly permitted to enforce Christ’s teachings... She has the obligation and authority to do so." That's wrong.

No, I spoke correctly. We see it in Scripture right after Jesus established His Church. All the first Christians accepted their obedience to those appointed.

“And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”


How is it people ignore this?

I don't see in there where they are to either literally or figuratively held at gunpoint and forced to submit...

Who said anything about gunpoint? Are you feeling ok? The point and quite clearly is you can’t be a follower of God if you don’t listen to His Church. The Church is obligated to teach the truth and she has the right to consider someone anathema if they reject the truth. It’s in the Bible that you claim is our source of truth.

Grace and peace to you, RR.

Grace & peace to you, as well

[RightReason]

HAVE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES EVERY CLAIMED TO BE INSPIRED PROPHETS?

No

If you say so, but again, I’m sure you can understand based on what I posted from their own publications, how it would appear they were acting as prophets.

And you don’t find it a little sketch that for awhile there they continued to make failed predictions? Should they even have attempted to make such predictions in the first place? Scripture warns about doing so. No one knows the hour. And you don’t think it strange how they keep seem to get things wrong and then have to make excuses. It just all seems disappointing to say the least and not really the type of thing one would expect from Christ’s Church.

[2timothy316]

HAVE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES EVERY CLAIMED TO BE INSPIRED PROPHETS?

No

If you say so, but again, I’m sure you can understand based on what I posted from their own publications, how it would appear they were acting as prophets.

And you don’t find it a little sketch that for awhile there they continued to make failed predictions? Should they even have attempted to make such predictions in the first place? Scripture warns about doing so. No one knows the hour. And you don’t think it strange how they keep seem to get things wrong and then have to make excuses. It just all seems disappointing to say the least and not really the type of thing one would expect from Christ’s Church.

So you're saying the RCC has never been wrong about a prediction? Should I post all of the predictions of the past Popes that have failed? Clearly you're not driven by what some says ends up being wrong because otherwise, the list is loooooong for the RCC in wrong predictions.
How about the one that was predicted in the 12th century that the current Pope is the last Pope?
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic- ... a1c8349131
People in glass houses...well you know the rest.

Also, do you really want to talk about the RCC and it's past that is a little more than disappointing, it's down right murderous.

If everyone didn't join a religion because in the religion's past they thought something would happen but didn't, no one would be in a religion.

[PinSeeker]

What Jesus said in John 6 cannot be intended literally, because no one ever did that (actually eat His flesh and drink His blood).

What are you talking about? Countless have done so.

Absolutely not. Do you think His disciples took a finger or a toe of Jesus and actually ate it? No. Taking it literally and coming up with a false doctrine like transubstantiation is silly.

As Jesus has done frequently in this Gospel, He is speaking in terms of physical items in this world to teach about spiritual realities.

I admit He does do that sometimes, but not here.

Absolutely he is. That's John's context in his entire gospel.

Also, anyone who knows Scripture would understand the parallels from the OT that Jesus was the spotless lamb for the sacrificial meal. It was always necessary to actually literally eat the sacrificial lamb.

Absolutely, but Jesus's sacrifice was of Himself on the cross. He is the Lamb of God, not the lamb of men. Thank you for making my point for me... or actually supplementing it.

I beg you to read John 6 and really think about it. Meditate on it. There is no way around it.

Right back at you. Every word.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Yes, the manna that God fed the Israelites with in their wandering in the desert was a type, a shadow, of Christ. Cannibalism is not in view in either place. The Lord provides for His people.

...to "eat" Jesus's flesh has the spiritual meaning of trusting or believing in Him

Nope.

Yep.

Similarly, to "drink His blood" means to trust in His atoning death, which is represented by the shedding of His blood.

Then why does Scripture say a few passages later that those who partake without discerning the Body and Blood pass judgment upon themselves and is why many are sick and dying? You can’t get sick from drinking symbolic blood. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. -1 Corinthians 11:29

LOL! Scripture surely does say here that it is possible to eat and drink condemnation upon oneself. This is the judgement of a holy God, not the flu or the measles.

Again, we were not told the Bible is our sole authority. As Christians we are expected to follow Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

According to whom?

According to Jesus Christ. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church. He who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you rejects the one that sent me. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. I give to you the keys to the kingdom.” And according to exactly how the first Christians understood it and acted.

As I said, Jesus, in saying upon this rock," was referring directly to Peter's confession of Him as the Christ, not Peter himself. And Peter himself denied any headship of anything.

Because again, everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture

Ok, if you believe that, then why don’t you accept in Scripture when He established His Church on Peter...?

Because He didn't establish it on Peter himself, but on the confession that Peter made, which we all, as members of His holy, catholic, apostolic Church make -- not because Peter made it, but because God revealed it to all of us just the way He did with Peter.

...and gave him the keys and told us to listen to him?

Peter, in that conversation, represented all of us. We believers all have the keys, and should hear Jesus (Who said, "My sheep hear my voice"... John 10:27), and make the same heartfelt confession Peter made and make it our own.

Why don’t you accept in Scripture when Scripture refers to the Church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth?

Because it doesn't. As I said, in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul is not referring to “the church” (Catholic or otherwise) as the source of truth or the creator of truth. He’s saying the Church... all those who are in Christ... is what holds up and holds firm the truth in the world. This fits with Paul’s warnings not to be swayed by carnal philosophies (Colossians 2:8), false teachers (2 Timothy 4:3), or any person who changes the gospel (Galatians 1:8). Rather than fall prey to false doctrine, we’re to compare teachers to the Word of God (Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Timothy 3:16; Romans 15:4). The Church -- that is, the entire population of Christian believers -- bears the earthly responsibility of holding up the truth of the gospel. The ultimate basis of that truth is Christ, not the proclamations or infallibility of members of any individual or group of individuals. Paul is calling on believers to care for the structure that “supports” or “props up” our message to the world. First Timothy 3:15 cannot be taken to mean that the church itself is the source or standard for truth.

Also, everything God requires of us is not given to us in Scripture – that is bad theology. The first Christians did not even have the Bible. You are aware of that, right?

The first Christians knew what we now know as the Old Testament very well, Moses and all the Prophets (surely you know this)... including Micah, who told the Israelites (and us), "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? All God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

The rest of your post looks repetitive and there's no need to keep going back over the same things, so I'm stopping here. I appreciate your devotion to your church, but I say that it's you that needs to rethink things.

Grace and peace to you, RR.

[RightReason]

How about the one that was predicted in the 12th century that the current Pope is the last Pope?
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic- ... a1c8349131

You post an anti-Cahtolic puff piece and expect me to take it seriously. Catholic Saints are not Popes. And Catholics don’t even have to accept everything a Pope says unless the Pope is speaking from the Chair of Peter. Your own article says the Catholic Church does not put any stock in prophecies for the exact reason I already stated in this thread, no one knows the day or the hour.

[2timothy316]

How about the one that was predicted in the 12th century that the current Pope is the last Pope?
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic- ... a1c8349131

You post an anti-Cahtolic puff piece and expect me to take it seriously.

Of course not and yet you expect me to take anti-Jehovah's Witness puff-pieces seriously? Are we not allowed for our past brothers to be wrong about anything? Yet your past leaders were wrong and you seem fine with it. Why? Let's pin this down.

The RCC has done some reallllllly bad stuff in their ledger as far as human rights and murder. You know it, I know it and the whole world knows it. Yet you don't take is seriously. Why? How does a person reconcile a religion that has caused so much pain to people with public burning, hangings and torture I can't even post here because it's too graphic. Please tell me so I can understand why anyone joins a religion that at one time killed people for reading the Bible. Someone being wrong is one thing but to keep teaching the wrong thing like don't read the Bible or we will kill you, for centuries....how do you reconcile with that?

Imagine that I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism. What would you say to me if asked the above questions.

BTW, "And Catholics don’t even have to accept everything a Pope says unless the Pope." This explains a lot about why Catholics are not unified and it's like many religions in one, thank you for this piece of info.